Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Fink v. Fruitland Irrigation District

Washington Supreme Court

Decided August 8, 1938No. 27139. Department OnePublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.

— This action is sought to be maintained under the declaratory judgment law (chapter 113, Laws of 1935, p. 305, as amended by chapter 14, Laws of 1937, p. 39; Rem. Rev. Stat. (Sup.), §§ 784-1 to 784-17 [P. C. §§ 8108-21 to 8108-37].)

The plaintiff was the state of Washinton, by and through the director of the department of conservation and development. The defendants were an irrigation district and the officers and agents thereof. The purpose of the action was to test the validity of certain out standing irrigation district bonds. After the complaint and answer had been filed, each of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Washington Beauty College, Inc. v. HuseWashington Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Acme Finance Co. v. HuseWashington Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Acme Finance Co. v. HuseWashington Supreme Court · 1938

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. DeGrief v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Decano v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Adams v. City of Walla WallaWashington Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Williams v. Poulsbo Rural Telephone Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Kahin v. LewisWashington Supreme Court · 1953

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API